Thought experiment: If the U.S. Government was magically abolished overnight, and the same with all the police forces in the country. Can you imagine the series of events that unfold next? It starts with the fact that we have bad guys and good guys. The bad guys will see a power vacuum and capitalize on it. They may do this independently or collectively, think of Negan in the Walking Dead if you are familiar with that one? They were a roving band of marauders. Tribes and protection entities will naturally arise to protect themselves from those with malintent, or strictly for conquesting and conquering "others." I guess what I'm saying is; I feel you 100%. I was watching Trump at Mount Rushmore. My first instincts were; "these heavy and syrupy levels of patriotic statism are ultra-nauseating." But then it got me to thinking, about the nature of anarchy, and whether or not it's even possible. It also got me thinking about Marxism and how much I prefer our current system over the idea of Marxism. Given the choice, I'd rather have our Statism than Marxism, but as you say: it's not freedom or independence. It's just relatively freer than socialism, marxism, or communism. I have a challenge for you, and that's to try and see that anarchy (no government) was never possible. Either that, or it's been with us all along. You might be thinking, well, how could anarchy be with us all along? If you've heard Trump's speech the other night at Mount Rushmore, he said that the government derives its power based on the consent of the governed. However, in our election process, we have only the options of who we can vote for and not what we can vote against. So, if we cannot withdraw the consent of getting governed on the reoccurring 4-year ballots, then this phrase consent of the governed has no meaning. If it has no meaning, it means that the government is illegitimate. If the government is illegitimate, it's not a government but rather a highly-organized crime syndicate. This means the consent of the governed is tantamount to the divine right of kings, in that it is airy-fairy bullshit that has no discernable meaning. It's this line of thinking that brings me to the realization that the natural state of anarchy (no government) exists today worldwide. The world has 195 warring and sometimes cooperating, Nation States or tribes of people or organized crime syndicates of which at the highest levels, the rules do not apply. It's not murder when the president does it. It is war. And he's doing it for peace. Yet, at the same time, we all know that war is mass murder. <-DOUBLETHINK I would posit that governments are more natural than we realize; that this is the natural path of human evolution. All government is-is massive cooperation. And usually, people are cooperating not out of consent but out of fear. Fear of the alternative, the dreaded communism. Or fear of what your government will do to you—if you don't financially support it. In short, I think anarchy already exists, the Nation States are illegitimate crime syndicates, and if by some weird magic if we could abolish it tomorrow, the first thing we'd do is start to build it all right back up again. What if, just like the free market, the government is a natural thing that arises out of human behavior? There's something very special about markets and prices that allows us to do business smoothly in our daily lives. I think we take this for granted because we cannot fathom a world without the market. I don't condone the fiat system, and I know that the U.S. market is not completely "free." However, it is relatively freer than a communist-style of government. The best way I can convey this is in the videos and links in [this post.](/informationwar/@thoughts-in-time/our-freer-market-communism) After that clicked for me, about the prices, and the value that they provide. It got me to thinking that markets arise naturally once you have a unit of trade, and preferably these units would be stores of value in and of themselves. The government may be similar. If ever it goes away, this is short-lived, and those who desire to control will rule by threat, force, and coercion. As long as there are people who will cow to their fear, there will be those willing to feed that fear and control them. The big question is, why are the people willing to put up with it? How much should people be willing to put up with? And are there some legit reasons for perhaps a limited form of government? I think anarchy is not achievable unless you reach out and grab it as you have. It won't be a total anarchy, but it is mostly anarchical. It is not for everybody, and there will always be those who consent to the will of the government. Knowing that governments (entities/people who rule by force) will always be there to a greater or lesser degree, what is the best path? Participate and be the change you want to see? Or shun it entirely? It's just a question to consider rhetorically or not, one that I don't know there is a right answer to. Great post, Jason! I enjoyed reading your perspective and resonate with a lot of what you're saying.

>"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

I wonder how they gauge if they have the consent of the governed, and how the people can lawfully or legally abolish government without engaging in an illegal insurrection. Does it even make sense to abolish our form of government, or does it make more sense to roll back the harmful legislation that we've passed? On a microlevel, we face the same problem with the police. Leftists want to defund the police, but all that will do is pave the way to a power vacuum that they can quickly seize upon by replacing the police with new and privatized Marxist-leaning entities that have even less understanding and comprehension of constitutional rights. I think the best and most productive way to defund the police is via the abolition of drug prohibition. That'll have the effect of limiting police contact with the people, which will result in less murder and brutality committed by the police.